Humphrey Ploughjogger to the Boston Gazette

[dateline] Monday, October 14, 1765

[salute] MessieursEdes & Gill,

I Han't rit nothing to be printed a great while:1 but I can't sleep a nights, one wink hardly, of late. I hear so much talk about the
stamp act and the governor's speech,2 that it seems as if 'twould make me crazy. The governor has painted a dreadful picture
of the times after the first of November—I hate the thoughts of the first of November.
I hope twill be a great storm, and black and gloomy weather, as our faces and hearts
will all be. Tis worse than all the fifth of Novembers3 that ever was. The Pope never did half so much mischief, as that stamp act will do,
if the world stands as long as the Pope has done. However, seems to me the governor
has represented the times worse than they will be. For in the first place they do
say, that thieves and robbers and rioters, ay and lyars too, and all sorts of rogues,
may be punish'd as well after the stamp act takes place as before. And as to suing
poor folks for money, that does no body no good but the lawyers. But as to trade and
shipping and such like, it seems to me we had better be without the most of that than
with it—for it only makes rum and such things cheap, and so makes folks drink toddy
and flip instead of cyder, when they an't half so good and holsome—and it mades [makes] us all beaus, and dresses us up fine. We got into a way on't o late,—our young men
buy them blue surtouts, with fine yellow buttons, and boughton broad cloth coats jackets
and breeches—and our young women wear callicoes, chinces and laces, and other nicknacks
to make them fine. But the naughty jacks and trollops must leave off such vanity,
and go to nitting and spinning. I always used to keep a comely boughten coat to go
to meeting in, but I'le vow I'le { 147 } never put it on again after first November, if the stamp act takes place; I'le cut
up the hide of my fat Ox that I'm fatting for my winter's beef first, and make a coat
of that, with the hair on. I'm sure I could be edified as much with the sermon, as
if I had on a royal robe, and be as warm in it too. I've read somewhere that the folks
in old England before Caesar went there, wore such skins of beasts, and yet loved
liberty, and knew how to keep it too. I don't believe our young folks would love to
dance together at husking frolicks, and to kiss one another a bit the less, if they
wore woolen shirts and shifts of their own making, than they do now in their fine
ones. I do say, I won't buy one shilling worth of any thing that comes from old England,
till the stamp act is appeal'd, nor I won't let any of my sons and daughters; I'de
rather the Spittlefield weavers should pull down all the houses in old England, and
knock the brains out of all the wicked great men there, than this country should loose
their liberty. Our fore fathers came over here for liberty of conscience, and we have
been nothing better than servants to 'em all along this 100 years, and got just enough
to keep soul and body together, and buy their goods to keep us from freezing to death,
and we won't be their negroes. Providence never designed us for negroes, I know, for
if it had it wou'd have given us black hides, and thick lips, and flat noses, and
short woolly hair, which it han't done, and therefore never intended us for slaves.
This I know is good a sillogissim as any at colledge, I say we are as handsome as
old England folks, and so should be as free.

So I don't like the governor's speech very well, any more than I did tother speech
that he made, where he has not done fairly by me.4 I'me sure I wrote abundance, about Hemp before he said a word about it. Mr. U and
I wrote a good many papers,5 and us'd many arguments for it, and told the way of managing ont, a year or two before
the governor said a word about it. Ay, and a great many folks were stirred up to try
it, by our writings too, and I believe raly Mr. U and I ought to have the honor and
glory and profit ont too—of bringing ont into fashion. I dont see why it would not
be reasonable for our Deputies to make Mr. U and I a grant or two for our extraordinary
services, as they do sometimes to other great men that dont deserve it half so much.

2. Gov. Francis Bernard addressed the General Court, 25 Sept. 1765, defending Parliament's
right to tax the colonies. Although he did not specifically justify the Stamp Act,
he warned that Massachusetts would virtually lapse into anarchy if it did not obey
the act after it { 148 } went into effect on 1 Nov. (Mass., Speeches of the Governors, &c., 1765 – 1775, p. 39–43).

3. Pope's Day, commemorating the frustration of the Gunpowder Plot of 1605. In Boston
this was usually the occasion for an outburst of anti-Catholic demonstrations and
bruising battles between the town's South End and North End mobs.

4. Among other things, Gov. Bernard's address to the General Court, 30 May 1765, recommended
the approval of bounties to encourage the production of hemp.

5. Humphrey Ploughjogger and “U” wrote three and four pieces respectively for Boston
newspapers; see note 1, above.

There is nothing of greater Necessity than the Administration of Justice,—Justice
cannot be administered at present but in the Usual Way.—Therefore the present Case
and these Times are excepted out of that general Law the Stamp Act.

Things for Necessity Sake, or to prevent a Failure of Justice, are excepted out of
a Statute. Woods. Inst. Page 9 [8].6

Acts of Parliament that are against Reason, or impossible to be performed shall be
judged void. 8. Rep. 118. 128. 129. 2. Inst. 587. 588.7

1. In JA, Diary and Autobiography, 1:267, note 2, this MS was tentatively dated 20 Dec. 1765, the day on which JA, together with James Otis and Jeremiah Gridley, appeared before the Governor and
Council to argue in behalf of Boston's memorial calling for the opening of the courts
in defiance of the Stamp Act. Probably, however, JA made these notes a day earlier when he received a brief note from William Cooper
notifying him of his selection to appear with Otis and Gridley as town counsel in
this matter (see 18 Dec. 1765, above). After getting Cooper's letter, JA gave a good deal of thought to the kinds of argument he might use on Boston's behalf
(Diary and Autobiography, 1:265–266). The next day JA was busy traveling to Boston and conferring there with political leaders before he
appeared before the Governor and Council—too busy to have had opportunity to write
out these notes on that day. Thus, 19 Dec. seems the more plausible date.

2. Presumably JA was unable to avail himself fully of these notes when he appeared in the council
chamber, for Otis and Gridley gave their younger colleague the apparently unexpected
honor of speaking first. According to a slightly flustered JA, “Then it fell upon me, without one Moments Opportunity to consult any Authorities,
to open an Argument, upon a Question that was never made before, and I wish I could
hope it never would be made again” (Diary and Autobiography, 1:267). For JA's argument, which does cite two authorities, see the next document.

3. Thomas Wood, An Institute of the Laws of England . . . Published for the Direction of Young Beginners,
or Students in the Law . . . , 7th or 8th edn., London, 1745, 1754. Pages 4 and 5 under the heading “Rules Concerning
Law” contain verbatim all of the statements above, including the citations from Coke's
Institutes. Where the MS is torn numbers have been supplied from Wood. In the first rule, the reference to
Coke's “Proem to 2d Inst.” was apparently supplied by JA.

4. Modern Reports or Cases Adjudged in the Court of King's Bench from the Second Year
of King William III to the End of His Reign, London, 12 [1738]: 687, 688, Hillary [term] 13 William. The quotation is taken from
Chief Justice Sir John Holt in City of London v. Wood.